| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2007 08:37:45 AM · #101 |
PS on the age thing. I'm sorry but that "I'm older little lady" stick doesn't fly with me. I am not disregarding life experience, it is a very valuable tool but I don't care you if you've got 30 adult years or 100 you are still limited to your perception. Example: The grand wizard of the KKK. Am I to accept his opinion as better than mine simply because he is older? This is obviously and EXTREME example and I am NOT making any comparissons to you so please don't go that direction, I am simply illustrating the point that life experience is limited to a small scope.
I'd pit my lowly 3 years of BEING a female and studying female issues up against your 30 years of guessing what being a female is like (and pressumably not conscerning yourself with women's issues) any day. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 08:56:47 AM · #102 |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 10:12:53 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I'd pit my lowly 3 years of BEING a female and studying female issues up against your 30 years of guessing what being a female is like (and pressumably not conscerning yourself with women's issues) any day. |
How do you know Art didn't start out as a female?
Maybe he got so fed up he decided to switch teams?
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 10:13:36. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:16:22 AM · #104 |
Hi Monica,
I was interested in what you had to say. It is a great subject â it is a shame that it has gotten a bit caught up in personal politics.
I have a few comments and some of them impact on a point that came up earlier - differences between the UK and the US.
Affirmative Action
In the UK affirmative action/reverse discrimination is not permitted. I must admit to not having known the extent to which it is used in the US until recently and I can see the cause for concern. It is surely a product of US-specific history and predominantly a tool used to combat race issues that has been extended to other areas of historic prejudice. I suppose that whether you agree with it or not will depend on what your long term goals are: it might address the inequality of opportunity, but at the expense of social harmony (Jason is an archetypal agitator for the latter). Personally, I would prefer to see a socially harmonious state, but then as a white male I do not suffer inequality of opportunity based on my race or sex.
Feminist Theory
I cannot pretend to know a lot of the detail. However, it seems quite obvious to me that equality of treatment for people of all kinds is a socially attractive ideal. It may interest you to know (also following up from some of the points made earlier) that the UK has recently introduced anti-ageism laws in the employment sphere.
Perfect equality cannot be achieved because physical and biological differences cannot (and IMO should not) be ignored. Certain roles will always call specifically for a man or a woman to be employed. However, that does not mean that we should not aim for equality where possible.
For many people, the debate could centre on what level of economic compromise society is willing to suffer in order to encourage sexual equality â the economic cost must be weighed up against the benefit to society. I guess that the US has taken a low cost/low intervention stance and has weak rights for women. In some ways, this runs counter to its stance on affirmative action. Is there some policy inconsistency there? Would it not be better to see stronger rights for women and less affirmative action (tackle the underlying causes, not the consequences)?
I have seen it argued that women should seek equality through using their biological advantages where applicable (and taking advantage of the biological weaknesses of men!). I have mixed feelings about this â I think that it could easily devolve into an unprincipled mess.
Maternity Rights
In the UK, maternity leave is a protected right (soon to be extended) and there is a very limited paternity right â I think that there are moves to make ma- and pa- ternal rights into parental rights, allowing one parent in each family to use the allotted time, or to share it. This is a good example of how feminism applied appropriately can benefit both men and women.
Pay equality and job security are supposed to be protected during maternity leave. In practice, this can result in women on maternity leave enjoying additional job security, because it is easy to make a claim that any dismissal was linked to maternity leave (which would be an easy wrongful dismissal claim). I would argue that this is down to poor implementation of a good rule, but some would disagree.
DPC âDebatingâ Style
I share your frustration that some people at DPC find it almost impossible to grapple with theory, principle, and academic study, instead preferring personal and anecdotal evidence.
The arguments that irritate me most are that personal anecdote (overwhelmingly probably inaccurate as the basis for a rule) is a better touchstone than statistics (subject to their margin of error and when read in their context), or that a personal anecdote can somehow disprove a point of principle. For example, in this context, no amount of personal experience overturns the fact that all studies overwhelmingly show that women as a general rule are paid less than men.
I thought that you were very restrained when dealing with detractors who were textually laughing in your face. Please be assured that most reasonable people will see those bullying and aggressive comments for what they are and judge the commentators accordingly.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:08:18 PM · #105 |
| Sometimes "theory, principle, and academic study" is just so much BS. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:16:27 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Sometimes "theory, principle, and academic study" is just so much BS. |
You talk of rights - they are in the abstract. It is hard to have a sensible conversation locked in anecdote - it just doesn't make much sense, it cannot result in any sensible conclusion or even comparison, because everyone has different anecdotal experiences, and everyone gets frustrated. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:40:30 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Personally, I would prefer to see a socially harmonious state, but then as a white male I do not suffer inequality of opportunity based on my race or sex. |
Here in the US, depending on your field, it is probable that, even (or perhaps especially) as a white male, you would have suffered inequality of opportunity. Most likely, you would not know exactly which opportunities you were denied, unless you had insight into the process by which you were denied. Employers are supposed to be "Equal Opportunity" that means they do not regard race, gender, religion etc as factors when hiring a candidate.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:43:47 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Personally, I would prefer to see a socially harmonious state, but then as a white male I do not suffer inequality of opportunity based on my race or sex. |
Here in the US, depending on your field, it is probable that, even (or perhaps especially) as a white male, you would have suffered inequality of opportunity. Most likely, you would not know exactly which opportunities you were denied, unless you had insight into the process by which you were denied. Employers are supposed to be "Equal Opportunity" that means they do not regard race, gender, religion etc as factors when hiring a candidate. |
That is something that I have learned about through this and other recent threads - as I said, it seems highly problematic and contrary to some other aspects of equality policy. I can see why it could be necessary - to deal with the immediate aftermath of grand scale discrimination - but it does not seem to be a great tool for encouraging long term social re-engineering.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:43:58 PM · #109 |
I read the first few posts and the last few and skipped the ones in the middle. They looked like they went off in a bad direction.
I will say this few things about women's equality:
Women are not equal to men. When I say "equal" I mean substantive equality. Saying that the reason a particular company doesn't have a maternity policy and that doesn't descriminate on the bases of because because the lack of that policy applies to men and women is one example of how the concept of "equality" has been misused or misunderstood. When I use the word "equality" I mean substantive equality. Where we recognize the differences among us (race, gender, age, etc) and take that into account in the way we create policy, laws and how we treat people..that's what needs to happen.
There is complacency because women have made some significant strides, but the march isn't over yet. Women still make about 70 cents on the dollar for what men make. Why is that? Because they leave the workforce to have kids? Someone has to do that, that doesn't mean women should be penalized for being childbears in that they can't get the higher paying jobs, etc. If all women behaved like men in the workforce, the human race would end. We DO need to recognize the differences between men and woman and use those to achieve equality. Its not about equal pay for equal work. Its about the overall structure of society and the concept and value of work where some work is considered "women's work" and some work is considered "men's work". Why are these things valued differently? Ask yourself why you value them differently?
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:28:28 PM · #110 |
will now be commenting in bold, thanks for the help guys.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Hi Monica,
I was interested in what you had to say. It is a great subject â it is a shame that it has gotten a bit caught up in personal politics.
I have a few comments and some of them impact on a point that came up earlier - differences between the UK and the US.
Affirmative Action
In the UK affirmative action/reverse discrimination is not permitted. I must admit to not having known the extent to which it is used in the US until recently and I can see the cause for concern. It is surely a product of US-specific history and predominantly a tool used to combat race issues that has been extended to other areas of historic prejudice. I suppose that whether you agree with it or not will depend on what your long term goals are: it might address the inequality of opportunity, but at the expense of social harmony (Jason is an archetypal agitator for the latter). Personally, I would prefer to see a socially harmonious state, but then as a white male I do not suffer inequality of opportunity based on my race or sex.
:) thank you. I tried so hard to say that I understood both sides but that I still stood for affirmative action and still got yelled at. I don't know all of the stats or details, as the upper class black vs. lower class white example was something I hadn't thought of and I do not agree with this usage of affirmative action. I need to read up more on how often this actually occurs and if it is a big problem or a few blips on the radar. But as I said all of the aid I recieve for schooling has nothing to do with my race or gender and all to do with my income and grades.
Feminist Theory
I cannot pretend to know a lot of the detail. However, it seems quite obvious to me that equality of treatment for people of all kinds is a socially attractive ideal. It may interest you to know (also following up from some of the points made earlier) that the UK has recently introduced anti-ageism laws in the employment sphere.
It does interest me! I think that is really great. As I have tried to say, if one is to be a feminist one must stand against the oppression of all, something that was missed earlier and then later used against me. Of course feminists care about ageism, more than half of the elderly are women and it is obvious that the policies and rules would apply to ALL ageism, not just mens.
Perfect equality cannot be achieved because physical and biological differences cannot (and IMO should not) be ignored. Certain roles will always call specifically for a man or a woman to be employed. However, that does not mean that we should not aim for equality where possible.
For many people, the debate could centre on what level of economic compromise society is willing to suffer in order to encourage sexual equality â the economic cost must be weighed up against the benefit to society. I guess that the US has taken a low cost/low intervention stance and has weak rights for women. In some ways, this runs counter to its stance on affirmative action. Is there some policy inconsistency there? Would it not be better to see stronger rights for women and less affirmative action (tackle the underlying causes, not the consequences)?
Wish I could tell you. I would rather it that way for sure but american politics are more centered right now on taking away rights (from gays, and for reproduction rights) that in is on making the society better as a whole. Basically anything to hit on nerves and distract from the war. Fun fact, the more "pro famlily" states that are against abortion rights are the ones that have less programs for children that are alive. Meaning lots of things, school funding, group homes, child care help, etc. etc. Seems hypocritical to be all for keeping the unwanted babies and then providing no help for them once they are actually born.
I have seen it argued that women should seek equality through using their biological advantages where applicable (and taking advantage of the biological weaknesses of men!). I have mixed feelings about this â I think that it could easily devolve into an unprincipled mess.
You are absolutely right. That is one branch of feminism... actually I think maybe even a branch of a branch! But it's been a while since my class so I couldn't tell you the name. One of the radical feminism braches. This is mostly to do backlash against the liberal feminists that wanted to remove femininity and become more "neutral". I'm not of the oppinion that femininity should be used against men however you cannot leave being a female out of policy either because then women would have no grounds for campaigning for reproductive rights and proper maternity leave (if we are to be like men we are to pop out the babies and go back to work with a stiff upper lip, obvoiusly this is not a good idea).
Maternity Rights
In the UK, maternity leave is a protected right (soon to be extended) and there is a very limited paternity right â I think that there are moves to make ma- and pa- ternal rights into parental rights, allowing one parent in each family to use the allotted time, or to share it. This is a good example of how feminism applied appropriately can benefit both men and women.
Yes, I am all for paternity leave. It is very important for the advancement of society that men come into the domestic arena just as much as more and more women are going out into the workplace.
Pay equality and job security are supposed to be protected during maternity leave. In practice, this can result in women on maternity leave enjoying additional job security, because it is easy to make a claim that any dismissal was linked to maternity leave (which would be an easy wrongful dismissal claim). I would argue that this is down to poor implementation of a good rule, but some would disagree.
DPC âDebatingâ Style
I share your frustration that some people at DPC find it almost impossible to grapple with theory, principle, and academic study, instead preferring personal and anecdotal evidence.
The arguments that irritate me most are that personal anecdote (overwhelmingly probably inaccurate as the basis for a rule) is a better touchstone than statistics (subject to their margin of error and when read in their context), or that a personal anecdote can somehow disprove a point of principle. For example, in this context, no amount of personal experience overturns the fact that all studies overwhelmingly show that women as a general rule are paid less than men.
I thought that you were very restrained when dealing with detractors who were textually laughing in your face. Please be assured that most reasonable people will see those bullying and aggressive comments for what they are and judge the commentators accordingly. |
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the support. I felt as if I was the only one here that had any sense for a while there. My boyfriend laughs but I really lost sleep over this. I'm prone to insomnia and when my mind is on something it won't rest... and I had to be up at 4:30 for work. I have not had a great day because of it, I know it's silly to be so effected over the internet but it's something I really care about and I felt very ridiculed. I was scared to even look but your post is a breath of fresh air. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:34:47 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by frisca:
When I use the word "equality" I mean substantive equality. Where we recognize the differences among us (race, gender, age, etc) and take that into account in the way we create policy, laws and how we treat people..that's what needs to happen. |
Very well put.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:37:14 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I read the first few posts and the last few and skipped the ones in the middle. They looked like they went off in a bad direction.
I will say this few things about women's equality:
Women are not equal to men. When I say "equal" I mean substantive equality. Saying that the reason a particular company doesn't have a maternity policy and that doesn't descriminate on the bases of because because the lack of that policy applies to men and women is one example of how the concept of "equality" has been misused or misunderstood. When I use the word "equality" I mean substantive equality. Where we recognize the differences among us (race, gender, age, etc) and take that into account in the way we create policy, laws and how we treat people..that's what needs to happen.
There is complacency because women have made some significant strides, but the march isn't over yet. Women still make about 70 cents on the dollar for what men make. Why is that? Because they leave the workforce to have kids? Someone has to do that, that doesn't mean women should be penalized for being childbears in that they can't get the higher paying jobs, etc. If all women behaved like men in the workforce, the human race would end. We DO need to recognize the differences between men and woman and use those to achieve equality. Its not about equal pay for equal work. Its about the overall structure of society and the concept and value of work where some work is considered "women's work" and some work is considered "men's work". Why are these things valued differently? Ask yourself why you value them differently? |
Thank you as well. I really appreciate a sound response. You have explained this in a way better than I could have.
Your last question reminds me of a quick example gave my cousin. We were having a chat and when he found out I was a feminist I got the usual unknowing response of "what?" and a strange look like I was suddenly a buffalo. So here is an example I gave when he said he worked just as much as his mother maintaining the property (the house and the land).
You do the tasks that are only needed from time to time and are much more praised... example, he cuts down the dead trees which is almost a fun family thing that his little girls watch him and "grandpa" do together. There is no doubt it is hard work. And they are praised and thanked and look like "heros" in the eyes of a 3 and 5 year old. (Other examples of "male" duties aroudn the house, the yard, fixing things, etc.)
"Grandma" does the dishes, cooks the dinner, and the laundry, etc. These are small, daily repetative tasks that must be done so the house doesn't fall apart but recieve very little notice or thanks. She is not the "hero" for washing the socks.
It was like a light went off in his head, and he said "You're right. I never thought about it. I need to thank her more."
That sort of response is enough to deal with the kind of harassment I recieved here. If I can open someone's eyes just a little. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:40:16 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I'd pit my lowly 3 years of BEING a female and studying female issues up against your 30 years of guessing what being a female is like (and pressumably not conscerning yourself with women's issues) any day. |
How do you know Art didn't start out as a female?
Maybe he got so fed up he decided to switch teams? |
lol. Well I wouldn't blame him. I sometimes wish I could pee standing up too. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 04:51:19 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Sometimes "theory, principle, and academic study" is just so much BS. |
You talk of rights - they are in the abstract. It is hard to have a sensible conversation locked in anecdote - it just doesn't make much sense, it cannot result in any sensible conclusion or even comparison, because everyone has different anecdotal experiences, and everyone gets frustrated. |
well put. Theories and stats beat one person's stories in these type of debates any day. You think Paris Hilton sees herself as oppressed? She couldn't give a hoot, in fact I'm sure she's thanking her lucky stars she's made her whole career out of being a hot woman. She does not stand for all women, obviously, and stats, though they can be skewed, are much closer to the truth.
David, sometimes is right. But not always. But what better do we have? You think we would have any of the advances in medicine in science without theories, etc? And what makes you say "BS" now is my question. Do you say it when you debate gun death stats? Only example I could think of but what I mean is are you ALWAYS against theories or only when you don't believe them?
Sociology and psychology both are very new sciences and people have a hard time realizing that this is not physics (which still operates with theories, though more concrete). There there isn't a contrete answer to everything. It's all too complex with so many different factors at play. (My boyfriend and I discuss this all the time, he's from a very science-based family).
Think of society as a giant person made out of all the little people like in some sort of whacky cartoon. On the whole you can look at society and say "that looks like ________ " but then you will look at all the little pieces and you will undoubtedly find little pieces that don't fit into the _________ theory. But that's the best you've got to work with at the time. That was the point I tried to make with every anecdote given to me. That of course they are valid but the part does not equal the whole and cannot claim to know the whole based on the little piece it is and the little pieces around it..
That is what makes those areas so very interesting to me and many others who study them. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 06:13:40 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sociology and psychology both are very new sciences |
Did you mean "sciences" ? ;-)
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 06:36:59 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sociology and psychology both are very new sciences |
Did you mean "sciences" ? ;-) |
Would you prefer pseudo-sciences?
LOL. I am working on 4 hours of sleep and a muffin at 3:30 in the afternoon so my brain is mush and I must have stared at your reply forever looking for a spelling error before the lightbulb came. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 07:42:02 PM · #117 |
PS to ART.
If you have nearly 30 years of ADULT experience and I only have 3... Either your math is wrong, your profile age is wrong, or you presume we became adults at much different times.
lets see
44-30 = 14
21 - 3 = 18
interesting. that gives me back another four years on the ratio.
But as I said before. I don't care about how much "older" and "wiser" you are than I. I'll believe you know what you are talking about with womens issues when you discuss this topic without telling me I'm close-minded and not learning when a MAN or WOMAN repeatedly tells me his/her personal experiences and passes them off as the same as facts and arguments. Please, tell me what you know about the feminist movement. Can you name even one modern revolutionary? Doubtful without a little google.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 19:42:24. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 09:19:04 PM · #118 |
| Interesting story about women in what was considered a "man's" field. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 09:31:29 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Interesting story about women in what was considered a "man's" field. |
Brilliant! That was really great... and so sad. Thank you.
I couldn't imagine going through all those tests like some lab rat to be told I never even had a chance in the first place. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:30:45 PM · #120 |
Jesus.
If anything, females are dominant.
Man calls woman fat. Woman slaps man. Man tells police. Police laugh/joke.
Woman calls man fat. Man slaps woman. Woman tells police. Police send a chopper to man's house.
'Fraid women are a little more than equal.. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:32:13 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
Jesus.
If anything, females are dominant.
Man calls woman fat. Woman slaps man. Man tells police. Police laugh/joke.
Woman calls man fat. Man slaps woman. Woman tells police. Police send a chopper to man's house.
'Fraid women are a little more than equal.. |
yup - and where are the masculinists??? LOL |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:32:57 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
Jesus.
If anything, females are dominant.
Man calls woman fat. Woman slaps man. Man tells police. Police laugh/joke.
Woman calls man fat. Man slaps woman. Woman tells police. Police send a chopper to man's house.
'Fraid women are a little more than equal.. |
yup - and where are the masculinists??? LOL |
Probably in jail..
Once again, this is why we should not have a female president. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:40:00 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
Jesus.
If anything, females are dominant.
Man calls woman fat. Woman slaps man. Man tells police. Police laugh/joke.
Woman calls man fat. Man slaps woman. Woman tells police. Police send a chopper to man's house.
'Fraid women are a little more than equal.. |
yup - and where are the masculinists??? LOL |
Probably in jail..
Once again, this is why we should not have a female president. |
Woman slaps man.
Man kills woman.
Man runs of to the deep amazon.
wooo hoo. fun game.... what? I'm going to add the "lol" here in hopes that none of this was serious. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:51:46 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Woman slaps man.
Man kills woman.
Man runs of to the deep amazon. |
are you implying that women are the weaker sex, and needs protection? isn't this making it un-equal for women? so why, now, that when a woman needed special treatment, it is ok (feminists should debate this), but when they are treated differently, it is discrimination?
back to the workplace topic. it is understandable that employers reward/pays their employees according to their performance and suitability to their jobs. heck, rarely 2 males doing the same job gets paid the same, be it opportunity, salary, benefits or treatment wise. sometimes people get so consumed (blinded) by their fight for women rights that they mistook (or take advantage of) any "unfair" treatment or gesture by employers as discrimination towards the fairer sex. |
|
|
|
05/15/2007 12:02:36 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Woman slaps man.
Man kills woman.
Man runs of to the deep amazon. |
are you implying that women are the weaker sex, and needs protection? isn't this making it un-equal for women? so why, now, that when a woman needed special treatment, it is ok (feminists should debate this), but when they are treated differently, it is discrimination?
back to the workplace topic. it is understandable that employers reward/pays their employees according to their performance and suitability to their jobs. heck, rarely 2 males doing the same job gets paid the same, be it opportunity, salary, benefits or treatment wise. sometimes people get so consumed (blinded) by their fight for women rights that they mistook (or take advantage of) any "unfair" treatment or gesture by employers as discrimination towards the fairer sex. |
um excuse me what? all people need protection from murderers. Your point is lost on me.
as for the equality question, read frisca's responce, she said it better than I could. but example... women deserve maternity leave. We are not the SAME as men, we have babies. OF COURSE we need special rights to compensate for this. That does not mean we are not equal. That means we are different. Men are not hurt by granting a woman maternity leave. Women are hurt however when they lose their jobs or recieve pay cuts simply for having a baby.
there is still not equal pay for equal work. period. it is not legally required between men and women but it is between the races. Do you not see hypocrasy in that?
I am not blinded by my fight for women's rights. People are blinded by their fight against it and don't even stop to think of why. Why do you care if I want women to have equal pay? Since when is equality a bad thing? I don't think you know enough about the figures. You are too concerned with disproving that inequality exists because that would mean you would have to recognize that men in general have an unfair advantage. And no one wants to think that. |
|
